COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONTINUES CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF BELGIUM

CAT
30th session
7 May 2003
Afternoon




The Committee against Torture continued its review this afternoon of an initial report of Belgium, hearing a Government delegation describe the rationale for what was termed a "broad" definition of torture incorporated into Belgian law, explain the lack of provisions mandating legal counsel and medical care for detainees, and discuss the absence of a national human rights institution.
The delegation, led by Claude Debrulle, Director-General of Penal Legislation and Human Rights of Belgium, responding to questions put by the Committee upon presentation of the report on Tuesday morning, said among other things that the Belgian definition of torture, which included private as well as public acts, still gave emphasis to the eradication of such maltreatment by Government officials by providing judges with the option of giving more severe sentences, based on aggravating circumstances, to public authorities convicted of torture or ill-treatment.
There were no strict regulations calling for pre-trial detainees to have access to legal counsel, contact with family members, or a doctor upon request, the delegation said, and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture also had noted the lack of such standards. Continuing reform of Belgian legislation would probably include the development of such guidelines, the delegation said, and an interdepartmental working group currently was considering the matter in the course of a review of police procedures. In any case, the period allowed for pre-trial detention in Belgium was short, the delegation said.
Debate on a national human rights institution had been under way for some years, the delegation said, and the fact that such an institution had yet to be established probably could be traced to a shortage of political will and to disagreements over what powers and responsibilities such an agency would have, but it was expected that a national human rights body ultimately would be created.
Belgium, as one of the 133 States parties to the Convention against Torture, must present periodic reports to the Committee on national efforts to prevent torture and related maltreatment.
The Committee's conclusions and recommendations on the Belgian report will be issued on the afternoon of 15 May.
The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 8 May, to begin its consideration of an initial report of Moldova.

Discussion
Members of the Belgian Government delegation, responding to questions put by the Committee upon presentation of the report on Tuesday morning, said among other things that ratification of the Convention against Torture had preceded reform of Belgian law to bring it into conformity with the Convention; admittedly it would have been better to do things the other way around; but debate on ratification of the Convention had been protracted, there had been a great deal of discussion on whether or not to include a definition of torture in domestic law, and in the end the political will to proceed with ratification had come to fruition sooner than the debate about reform of domestic legislation had been resolved.
Establishment of a national human rights institution had long been contemplated, the delegation said, but to date it had not occurred. There seemed to be a lack of political will, concern about the costs involved, and differences of opinion about what such an agency's powers would be. Certain non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also were suspicious of the idea, wondering how their own activities would be affected.
The definition of torture incorporated into domestic law was broader than that of article 1 of the Convention, it was true, the delegation said; the report and the introduction to the report had given the reasons for adoption of the broader definition. The Government was sensitive to the concerns expressed by the Committee, but felt that the discretion given to a judge in deciding upon punishment relating to aggravating circumstances of torture, allowing longer and more severe sentences for public authorities committing such maltreatment in the course of their duties, did place emphasis on Government responsibility for ill-treatment and punish the disrespect for law shown by such acts. "Cruel treatment" had not been mentioned in the definition, but it was felt that gradations of "cruel" could be vague; in any case, the Belgian definition was based on jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which spoke of suffering and violation of human dignity. It was felt that cruelty was taken into account in other provisions of the relevant Belgian law. Those giving orders for acts of torture or degrading treatment were in all cases liable to prosecution and punishment.
Belgium did not legally accord, in a compulsory fashion, such things as access of detainees to lawyers and medical personnel and contact with next of kin, the delegation said; on the other hand the length of pre-trial detention was brief. The attention of Belgian authorities had been drawn to this lack of formal procedures – the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture had noted it – and it had been acknowledged that access to lawyers and doctors probably should be allowed in practice. Criminal Code reform now being contemplated probably would include such standards. An interdepartmental working group currently was considering the matter in relation to a review of police procedures. Notification of family was called for under procedures established for administrative arrests. However, access to a lawyer for an administrative arrest was not being considered, as the maximum detention period for administrative arrest was 12 hours.
Prior to 11 September 2001, Belgium had not had specific anti-terrorism measures, the delegation said; a draft bill had been composed to bring domestic legislation into line with European Union anti-terrorism standards. Some aspects of police techniques would be affected under the legislation, based on the serious nature of terrorist acts and relating to the surveillance of private individuals. But European standards barred any recourse to inhuman or degrading treatment in the course of efforts to combat terrorism.
Under draft legislation, necessity could not be cited as a justification for torture, the delegation said; acts of torture would not be allowed under any circumstances or under any threat to the Government or national security. Other Government codes now considered out of date and weighing on the matter also were in the course of being reformed.
Extradition of a person to a country where he risked capital punishment or torture should not occur if legitimate arguments were made and the Convention and European standards were invoked in the course of requests for asylum, the delegation said.
Texts used to instruct military personnel on human rights matters were not immediately available and would be provided to the Committee at a later date, the delegation said.
Evidence obtained through torture or maltreatment would in practice, through established judicial procedures, be declared inadmissible in court, the delegation said.
Use of force in relation to demonstrations and crowd control was being reviewed following events in 1998, the delegation said; responsibilities and standards were being made much more clear. A text would be made available to the Committee giving the specifics of the reform. The principles of proportionality and necessity were applied to police use of force – force was only justified, in other words, when less drastic measures were not sufficient to the situation. Use of force in the removal of foreigners from the country had been made subject to directives that were very detailed – in fact the relevant document ran to 40 pages. Each case was to be taken and considered individually, and medical accompaniment had to be provided during such expulsions; any use of force or constraint was to be carried out according to the principles of legality, proportionality, and necessity.
Events when the police forces overreacted in maintaining public order were rare; the police were well-trained and experienced in coping with demonstrations. Brussels, for example, averaged seven public demonstrations per day, and several neighbouring countries had consulted Belgium for expert advice in dealing with such situations. During recent demonstrations over the war in Iraq, there had been some cases of police overreaction, the delegation said; but the situation had been unusual and complex.
Refusal of subordinates to obey superiors' orders was allowed if such orders, such as by a police superior, were illegal and would result in torture or maltreatment, the delegation said.
Disciplinary inquiries within the police force could be preceded by preliminary inquiries initiated by the superiors of the police officer concerned, the delegation said; but the Independent General Police Inspectorate could carry out independent investigations. A police officer could ask for a review of his case by an independent review body.
The country's Arbitration Tribunal was an independent body that reviewed the conformity of laws and decrees with the Belgian Constitution, the division of powers between the branches of Government, and the standards of international treaties, the delegation said.
Recourse available to foreigners subject to removal orders from the country included the right to an annulation appeal, the delegation said; in addition, an administrative referee could be appealed to; and a request could be made for the suspension of the decision of removal. Currently all removals of foreigners were suspended until decisions were made related to the functions of the administrative referee. In the past there had been several mistakes under which foreigners had been removed without a final decision being made by the Council of State.
Unaccompanied minors arriving in Belgium were returned to their families in foreign countries when the parents or other close family could be located, were willing to receive such children, and were in a financial and practical position to take care of them, the delegation said; such minors, depending on age and maturity, were accompanied by Government officials on their trips home.
Belgian law allowed for the expulsion of foreigners deemed to be threats to national security or public order, the delegation said, but in practice the possibility of such expulsion was limited by other standards that did not allow it to be applied to persons of long residence in Belgium, foreigners born in Belgium, those brought to Belgium at a young age, and persons falling into several other categories.
Children of families seeking asylum were not separated from their families, the delegation said; specific areas of holding centres were set aside for families.
Human rights training had been provided for some time to prison employees, the delegation said; anti-torture instruction was included; ongoing training took place in two centres in the country, and projects also were carried out in individual prisons, although budget constraints had compelled authorities to make difficult choices about the extent of prison training programmes in general.
Physical violence between prisoners was always a problem, the delegation said; staff were trained in responding to such situations and inmate regimes were designed to reduce violence.
A law that had allowed a minor to be kept in an adult prison for up to 14 days if space in an institution for children was not available had been revoked, the delegation said. Standards for isolation of young persons who were incarcerated were extremely stringent; such isolation was not a punishment; in some instances the isolation had extended to 17 days – longer than what was allowed for adults – but that standard had been changed and now the maximum was eight days. Any isolation beyond 12 hours required an extension.



* *** *